What does it mean to "Challenge the Character"?

[5ekyu]

It's obvious that we look at this problem in a very different manner. I think we agree that there is a fairly sweet spot where there is a mixture of player agency and choice with character simulation of abilities, where the character's abilities are informing the player's choice and no one's choices in character creation are being invalidated and conversely no one is able to get away with purely gaming the system by, for example, as you suggested dumping charisma and trying to treat all social situations as a matter of pure player skill.

But while we seem to agree over the sweet spot, we both are doing exactly the opposite in the pure cases - #1 and #2 - and yet we state that we have basically the same reasoning behind our opposite approaches. So either something is screwy about what we mean by pure player challenge and pure character challenge, or we have a hugely different perspective on what invalidates play.

I understand that you don't want to see the chargen mini-game invalidated, but while I understand that, the risk incurred by invalidating player agency by taking their choices out of the equation seems to be vastly greater.

Let's return to my hypothetical "Choose Your Own Adventure Book". In it I defined two cases, one of which, pure player choice involves no reference to character ability, and the other pure resolution by character ability, involves no player choice. Of the two, which book do to you think makes a better game to play, the one where all the problems are of pure player choice (your #1) or all the problems are of pure resolution by character ability (your #2)?

I think you may be hitting what p sense as the Elf-skew.

#2 is not at all "no player choice" - not harfly.

In #2 the player choices are involved in two ways, one direct, one indirect.
Indirect- the player choices made before - in chargen and after - directly setup the "stats" called for the resolution. Some of those may be absolutes (nor proficiency or no tools) but most they are modifiers to the odds. The Joe has +8" is an indirect result of a choice made long ago. So might "several NPCs dhow up to help" as a response to prior good faith acts that might have been totally non-stat (#1 provides boost.)

Directly, the choices made right then and there impact not only the outcome but the odds. Did you use dome crowbar to gain advantage? Did the guy who is best at it go first or not? Does someone have feather fall prepped irl known in case there is a fall? Is there a rope tied to you as safety? Does anyone use enhance ability or guidance or bardic dice?

These and hundreds more can directly impact the odds - even moving it to an auto-success in some cases where skill plus these choices meet the criteria. They can also constrain and influence the outcome on a failure. This is imo vital in a game where "some progress with setback" is part of the basic core options for what a failure on a skill check is resolved as.

Your "just roll a die with no choice" is **not** my #2. Its not close.

That's in DnD terms like maybe getting forced to draw from deck of many things. Even saves reflect back to chargrn choices and options in the moment that can apply.

 

[Celebrim]

I think you may be hitting what p sense as the Elf-skew.

#2 is not at all "no player choice" - not harfly.

When I introduced my example of the two doors to open, did you object to the details of the example?

When I introduced my example of the two different sorts of pages in a "Choose your Own Adventure Book", did you object to the details of the example?

Would you like to object now?

In #2 the player choices are involved in two ways, one direct, one indirect.

Indirect- the player choices made before - in chargen and after - directly setup the "stats" called for the resolution.

These "indirect challenges to the player" are fundamentally what we are talking about as "challenges to the character". First, I object that this is a challenge to the player because the player may have not had any agency in CharGen. The player could be using pregenerated characters, as for example in the case of the "Lone Wolf" choose your own adventure books, or the D&D choose your own adventure books, or many RPG scenarios. The player could use a game system that randomly generates his character, giving him little or no control over what sort of character he is playing. Or for example, in my own campaign one player left and the incoming player took over playing his PC. Which player is being challenged by these "indirect challenges"? Isn't it obvious that it is the character that is being challenged either way you answer?

Secondly, I object that even if this is a sort of challenge to the player, challenging the player in a Chargen minigame to foresee the sorts of problems that they face and will need answers too is not the same sort of challenge as challenging a player to solve a problem through choice of strategy, deduction, and so forth in the moment and as such we can meaningfully distinguish between them. I'm not particular stuck on terminology. We can call them "A" and "B" or "1" and "2" as well as "challenge to the player" and "challenge to the character" for all I care. That's just labels. The point is, the two things are different.

Directly, the choices made right then and there impact not only the outcome but the odds. Did you use dome crowbar to gain advantage?

False choice, and just another example (generally) of an indirect challenge. Having appropriate tools or equipment is just part of a character preparation and doesn't involve a meaningful choice. Why would you not use the crowbar?

Did the guy who is best at it go first or not?

False choice. Why would you not choose to use the guy who is best? And if you didn't choose to use the guy that was best because the choice was forced on you, that's still not a choice.

Does someone have feather fall prepped irl known in case there is a fall? Is there a rope tied to you as safety?

None of which has any bearing on the challenge of opening a door. Introducing the possibility of a larger puzzle unrelated to the door, or more importantly to the door puzzle examples as previously presented as examples of type, is simply evading the issue. And ultimately, even things like, "Did you check for traps?", "Did you listen at the door?", "Did you have a listening cone with a screen across it to block ear crawlies?", become non-choices as well, as they players are likely to just assert, "Standard procedure for doors." at some point.

Does anyone use enhance ability or guidance or bardic dice?

Generally, false choice as well if this doesn't really involve expending any crucial resources and retries are allowed, etc. This is just adding up more plusses anyway.

These and hundreds more can directly impact the odds...

Sure, but that's all still just challenge to character. You've just impacted the odds. You've modified the strength check or the open locks check that is testing the character, and really not in a meaningful way other than impacting the odds. If a choice is obvious and routine and requires no particular insight, it's not a choice. No cleverness is involved in using a crowbar to force open a door, and choosing to take a crowbar is no different than choosing to have a strong character or skill in opening locks. That's back to your "indirect challenge".

This is imo vital in a game where "some progress with setback" is part of the basic core options for what a failure on a skill check is resolved as.

Wait a minute... let's not get this conversation side tracked on "fail forward" stuff. I see no need to add in more terms, especially to one that seems so tangential.

Your "just roll a die with no choice" is **not** my #2. Its not close.

I am not convinced. Tell me that you can alter the odds of passing a strength check to open a door by applying a guidance spell and a crowbar is still chargen choices of the type you describe as indirect.

That's in DnD terms like maybe getting forced to draw from deck of many things.

No, we have established in the thread that there are purely random things that are neither challenge to player or challenge to character. Being forced to draw from a deck of many things would seem to be a case in point of. But, I have provided simple examples of pure challenge to player and pure challenge to character. If you have a quibble with the examples, I'd prefer you start from that point just so we have a framework of discussion.

Even saves reflect back to chargrn choices and options in the moment that can apply.

Again, why assume chargen choices exist? And to the extent that they exist, they are obviously different than making choices in the moment. Again, for the proof of this, consider my previous examples of the types.

 

[robus]

Totally agree. "Can you roll above a certain number on a die?" is really not a very interesting challenge, even if one player has an easier target than another player. So if that's all that's behind "challenging the character", count me out.

But isn’t this the majority of a combat encounter? Trying to roll a number to beat an AC or DC... (which is why I think combat really challenges the characters)

 

[Guest 6801328]

But isn’t this the majority of a combat encounter? Trying to roll a number to beat an AC or DC... (which is why I think combat really challenges the characters)

That's the majority of the dice rolling, sure. What about movement, choosing targets, deciding to take other actions (Dodge, Disengage, etc.), etc. etc. etc.

Looking at it another way, how much fun are fights where none of that other stuff happens, and it is just taking turns rolling a d20 and subtracting damage? It's the classic "bag of hit points" complaint, and it's boring. (YMMV, of course.)

I'm basically making the same argument for other challenges: challenge the players to make decisions that affect the probability of success, and then resolve the remainder with dice rolls, if necessary. (Combat can also be resolved without dice rolls: one side or the other flees, and if the pursuers are slower there doesn't need to be any dice rolled.)

 

[iserith]

But isn’t this the majority of a combat encounter? Trying to roll a number to beat an AC or DC... (which is why I think combat really challenges the characters)

There are a ton of important decisions being made by players every turn which affect the difficulty of the challenge. Take this challenge right here: Rope Tricked! Think of the myriad decisions the players are making as they try to survive and escape the roper then deal with thwarting the ghost's plans while navigating the environment. It's way more than rolling dice. The dice are just there to resolve uncertainty.

 

[robus]

Sure sure, but when it comes down to it, the most important thing is dealing damage and not getting hit in return. The rest is window dressing. That’s fun, I agree, but combat is 75% PC vs NPC dice rolling.

 

[Celebrim]

But isn’t this the majority of a combat encounter? Trying to roll a number to beat an AC or DC... (which is why I think combat really challenges the characters)

To a large extent, yes, I think so. Certainly it is the hope of every power gamer to arrange to have a big enough hammer that all obstacles can be beaten down by the simple application of force. All challenges become nails.

However, there is a small amount of relevant tactical positioning in most RPG combats, and small amounts of battlefield control, and so forth, so that ones choices as a player can be meaningful. I certainly know as a GM how a group of players with a good and well executed plan can make mince meat of most anything, while the same group of characters, when the players are less intentional and act with less foresight can find themselves tumbling back in disarray trying to recover before they are slaughtered by what was objectively less of a challenge than what they moments before overcome with ease.

It's my goal as a GM to as much as possible design encounters where the players have meaningful choices to make and it doesn't revolve down to just rolling to hit and subtracting hit points. I don't always succeed, but that's what I strive for.

 

[iserith]

Sure sure, but when it comes down to it, the most important thing is dealing damage and not getting hit in return.

The many decisions made to achieve that result are how the players overcome the challenge. The more difficult the challenge, the harder the decisions, trade-offs, and resource expenditures become. The character stats and features just adjust the die rolls, when die rolls are required, plus additional action options for the player to use, etc.

 

[robus]

The many decisions made to achieve that result are how the players overcome the challenge. The more difficult the challenge, the harder the decisions, trade-offs, and resource expenditures become. The character stats and features just adjust the die rolls, when die rolls are required, plus additional action options for the player to use, etc.

Yeah, but you’re not going to agree that there’s a ton of die rolling in combat? The result of combat actions are almost always uncertain and require rolls. I’m not saying that the players don’t make choices I’m just saying there’s not much they can do to swing the combat without swinging a weapon (or casting a spell).

Anyway we’re going in circles, and this is a weird feeling to be in counterpoint... (I probably failed my wisdom save, darn my -4 modifier!)

 

[iserith]

Yeah, but you’re not going to agree that there’s a ton of die rolling in combat? The result of combat actions are almost always uncertain and require rolls. I’m not saying that the players don’t make choices I’m just saying there’s not much they can do to swing the combat without swinging a weapon (or casting a spell).

I don't know if I'd characterize it as a ton. But obviously I don't deny rolls happen in combat and often many of them. What I do object to is saying that the existence of said rolls indicate the character is being challenged (at least in the important sense of game play). It's the player who is being challenged here to make decisions to reduce the difficulty of the challenge and overcome it.